Intelligent Design, most scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God is too good for Intelligent Design? Nonsense.

God is called the “first cause,” all was made by Him. Pope Benedict called it an “Intelligent Project.” Life, that is. Programming is produced by an intelligence and is designed to produce results, i.e. it is goal oriented. Evolution is not.

God bless,
Ed
 
dcdurel said:
Einstein did NOT believe in intelligent design at the beginning. He was forced to believe in it, just like most astrophysicists BECAUSE of the scientific facts he learned about the universe.

In other words, most astrophysicists, did not force the scientific facts to fit their preconceived beliefs, but the scientific facts forced them change their preconceived beliefs to accept the fact that some intelligent being outside of time and space had to create the universe. They had to give up their previous theories that all developed by chance or that the universe always existed, **because of the scientific facts they learned. **
Click to expand...
If most astrophysicists, and a significant number of other scientist believe in ID, then we should be close to the day when ID is taught as science in public schools and universities. To date, it was my understanding that science teachers, and the science community in general, were keeping ID out of science class. 🙂
 
MrWhy said:
If most astrophysicists, and a significant number of other scientist believe in ID, then we should be close to the day when ID is taught as science in public schools and universities. To date, it was my understanding that science teachers, and the science community in general, were keeping ID out of science class. 🙂
Click to expand...
They don’t. They may accept the concept of a designer (I don’t know that that is true), but that is different than ID. ID is a political tool to get God in the science classroom. Nothing else.

ID will not be taught in the science classroom because it is not science.

Peace

Tim
 
So, all this is for some is Hearts and Minds 101. Oh well.

God bless,
Ed
 
God is too good for Intelligent Design?
Click to expand...
Too competent. “Design” is the mark of an inferior creature, not a Creator. God isn’t Baal, prancing about, making a tree here, and a rabbit there.
God is called the “first cause,” all was made by Him.
Click to expand...
It’s just that he used a more efficient process than design. Engineers are now starting to use it, because it works better.
Pope Benedict called it an “Intelligent Project.” Life, that is.
Click to expand...
He didn’t say “intelligent design?” I think I know why.
Programming is produced by an intelligence and is designed to produce results, i.e. it is goal oriented. Evolution is not.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict says that God can use even contingency to His purposes:

“Whether the available data support inferences of design or chance…cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.”
 
Your statement about design being inferior is false. Evolution is in no way superior. A computer simulation is Intelligently Designed. Period. It is not natural evolution.

God bless,
Ed
 
If something is designed it is done so to suit the enviroment that it is in. However as you may have noticed enviroments change and if it cannot evolve and adapt to suit its new enviroment it will die/break ect

In this sense evolution is far superior to ID.
 
That sums it up nicely. The damning thing about ID, as far as scientists are concerned is not that it’s creationism lite (although it is) , not that it’s an insult to God to demote Him to a mere "designer (althought it is). It’s that ID doesn’t work. And scientists are pragmatists to the core. If it works, they use it. If it doesn’t work, they ignore it.

A nifty name change and a clean set of clothes won’t make it more attractive to them.
Your statement about design being inferior is false. Evolution is in no way superior.
Click to expand...
Engineers have already demonstrated that it is. God demonstrated the same thing much earlier.
 
Nonsense. Engineers know that to modify or upgrade/improve an existing, complex interdependent system, you need to know how the parts interact and how the change will affect the system as a whole. Evolution cannot do that.

I also find it fascinating that ID, while spoken of as dead, is still very much alive. I support it because it is sound science.

To add God’s point of view, as if you know it, does not add to the debate. In any regard, Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick without science, that is how God works. He creates from nothing - ex nihilo.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ah…we note that Ed has shifted to ID…now we can stop the assault on evolution at last.
 
edwest2 said:
Nonsense. Engineers know that to modify or upgrade/improve an existing, complex interdependent system, you need to know how the parts interact and how the change will affect the system as a whole. Evolution cannot do that.

I also find it fascinating that ID, while spoken of as dead, is still very much alive. I support it because it is sound science.

To add God’s point of view, as if you know it, does not add to the debate. In any regard, Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick without science, that is how God works. He creates from nothing - ex nihilo.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
I dont understand how ID can be sound science. At best it is a guess. Im not saying its wrong. Far from it. But it certainly isnt based on any scientific studys. Its based on a lack of knowledge, and perhaps also the humans physce demanding that things must conform to what we already know.

On the other hand Evolution is a scientific theory based upon obervation of what is available at the moment. In general scientists are very used to ditching one theory in favor of another as soon as there is suitable evidence. There isnt a world conspirocy to deny ID its rightful place its still yet to earn it.

On topic. There are a lot of scientists present and past who beleave in ID. But here is the core of the argument. Beleaf doesnt constitue scientific fact and i have little doupt these same scientists would change there point of view very quickly if new evidence came to light.
 
It’s used by archaeologists all the time to identify intelligently designed artifacts from those produced naturally.

If a device that looked like a pocket watch was found on Mars, no one would assume it was made naturally.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It’s used by archaeologists all the time to identify intelligently designed artifacts from those produced naturally.

If a device that looked like a pocket watch was found on Mars, no one would assume it was made naturally.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
How many of those things are biological, Ed? You don’t even understand the concept of intelligent design as it is used in ID.

Peace

Tim
 
What you just wrote is a nonsequiter. I have been reading about ID and designed systems being used in nanotechnology. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read engineers talking about the intricacies of biological systems. They study those too to get practical ideas.

There is a publication called I.D., an international magazine that covers the Industrial Design field. Biological references, from cells to insects, are used all of the time.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It’s used by archaeologists all the time to identify intelligently designed artifacts from those produced naturally.

If a device that looked like a pocket watch was found on Mars, no one would assume it was made naturally.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Only because we know that human’s have pockets and watches and how they tend to produce pocketwatches. There are plenty of things on mars that could be used as TIMEPIECES that occur naturally.

What criteria do you suggest using for telling apart designed from non-designed things?
 
Pick up a good book about archaeological field work and the criteria they use to identify, say, an arrowhead made by an intelligence, as opposed to a triangular shaped rock made by weathering or breakage. Read about how primitive hand axes are identified from similarly shaped rocks.

Specific to biological systems, like living cells, if the implication is we know how they can be built using purely natural means, then build one.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What you just wrote is a nonsequiter. I have been reading about ID and designed systems being used in nanotechnology. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read engineers talking about the intricacies of biological systems. They study those too to get practical ideas.
Click to expand...
It is not. You keep using the argument that archeologists look for design in artifacts and that means that we can see design in life forms. The two are not equivalent. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to see the difference. Looking for ideas in biological systems for design ideas has absolutely nothing to do with ID.
There is a publication called I.D., an international magazine that covers the Industrial Design field. Biological references, from cells to insects, are used all of the time.
Click to expand...
To support intelligent design in biology? How does looking for ideas in nature equate supporting ID? Answer: It doesn’t.

Peace

Tim
 
The question is simple: do we know of any method outside of intelligent agency that can produce complex, densely interdependent, functional living systems? The answer is no. Intelligence is required, both in working in dead material like metal and with living material like cells.

God bless,
Ed
 
(Barbarian notes that engineers have found that evolutionary processes are more efficient and effective for very complex problems)
Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that’s wrong. Engineers are now using genetic algorithms that have no knowledge at all, being mere natural selection. And yet the often outperform intelligent design. Many times, the engineers aren’t even sure how the new solution works…

**Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it
creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands…

Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a “primordial soup” of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest…

A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all–there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit
stopped working.

It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells–possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance–to influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle effect and incorporated it into the solution.**
netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

Creation is a whole lot more interesting and complex than you imagine.
Engineers know that to modify or upgrade/improve an existing, complex interdependent system, you need to know how the parts interact and how the change will affect the system as a whole.
Click to expand...
See above. Surprise.
Evolution cannot do that.
Click to expand...
Take a look. You’ve been badly misled.
I also find it fascinating that ID, while spoken of as dead, is still very much alive. I support it because it is sound science.
Click to expand...
It’s still a viable religion, but as a science, it was DOA.
To add God’s point of view, as if you know it, does not add to the debate. In any regard, Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick without science, that is how God works. He creates from nothing - ex nihilo.
Click to expand...
True. But science can’t do that. It can only go step by step, using evidence to get to the next answer. That’s why ID is useless; it doesn’t work.

And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top